3 ms·
> Isn’t HTML supposed to be responsible for the structure of a webpage? If by structure you mean things like hbox/vbox then no, html is not supposed to do that
by yoz-y 5y ago
> Isn’t HTML supposed to be responsible for the structure of a webpage?
If by structure you mean things like hbox/vbox then no, html is not supposed to do that. HTML should only represent the semantic structure.
- kaba0 5y agoYeah I know, but that is because it was meant for documents. It is not a great fit for web applications.
- eurasiantiger 5y agoWhat is a better fit for web applications?
- kaba0 5y agoNothing, because web applications are by definition html css js. Though canvas-based solutions can circumvent the layouting problem, but at the price of reinventing everything in a non-standard way.
- onethought 5y agoThe layout problem isn’t css... it’s the user platform is anything from a tiny vertical screen to a giant horizontal one. Swing, Qt, et al do not have great answers to this problem, and definitely not superior ones than css.
- mpfundstein 5y agoqml is quite awesome. hands down! its a joy to work with. but I agree in general with your statement.
- danShumway 5y agoApplications aren't special. There are a couple of exceptions for interfaces that are genuinely unconventional, or that deal with multiple spacial dimensions, or that are primarily representing graphs and visual/audio data. But most interfaces should be representable in pure text. This argument that "the web is only for documents" is missing the point that most applications are just interactive documents when you really break down their UI. A labeled tree is a fine way to represent user-facing state for most apps, and most apps would benefit from exposing a more semantic interface to users that was easier for them to manipulate and read programmatically.